Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 1 chart position in 1 market.
By chart position
- 🇨🇦CA · Social Sciences#47100K to 300K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
30K to 90K🎙 Daily cadence·227 episodes·Last published 1w ago - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
100K to 300K🇨🇦100% - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
55K to 165K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
Recent episodes
The North Korea Laptop Farm (US v. Christina Chapman, 2024–2025): Identity Laundering and the Erosion of Digital Borders
May 3, 2026
4m 32s
The Duty of Candor in the Age of AI: The Greg Lake Suspension
Apr 26, 2026
5m 35s
The Right to Refuse Treatment – Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
Apr 21, 2026
4m 56s
Chemical Intent: The Limits of “Roid Rage” in Criminal Law
Apr 19, 2026
13m 30s
The matrix defense: State v. Ansley
Apr 17, 2026
2m 21s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Description | Length | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/3/26 | The North Korea Laptop Farm (US v. Christina Chapman, 2024–2025): Identity Laundering and the Erosion of Digital Borders | Investigate the case of Christina Marie Chapman, who operated a “laptop farm” from her homes in Minnesota and Arizona, enabling North Korean IT operatives to steal U.S. identities, secure remote jobs at over 300 American companies, and generate more than $17 million for the DPRK regime. This episode details the mechanics of the scheme—stolen identities, hosted company laptops, and cross-border shipments—while examining modern identity laundering and the challenges of enforcing digital sovereignty in a remote-work era. Essential listening for cybersecurity professionals, national security analysts, corporate risk officers, legal experts, and anyone concerned with the intersection of economic espionage, sanctions evasion, and the vulnerabilities created by distributed workforces. | 4m 32s | ||||||
| 4/26/26 | The Duty of Candor in the Age of AI: The Greg Lake Suspension | In April 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a landmark indefinite suspension against attorney Greg Lake, marking a shift from mere financial sanctions to career-altering discipline for AI misuse. This episode deconstructs the "Failure of Candor" that led to his downfall. We move past the 57 hallucinated citations to the courtroom confrontation where Lake initially blamed a broken computer and a wedding anniversary for the errors. We discuss why the court found his explanation "lacked credibility" and what this means for the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in a world where AI-generated fabrications are becoming a weekly occurrence in the docket | 5m 35s | ||||||
| 4/21/26 | The Right to Refuse Treatment – Riggins v. Nevada (1992) | In this episode, we examine Riggins v. Nevada (1992), a landmark Supreme Court case addressing whether the state can forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant awaiting trial. The Court ruled that while forced medication is not categorically prohibited, the state must demonstrate it is medically appropriate and the least restrictive means of achieving competency for trial. The decision protects the defendant’s due process rights and the integrity of the adversarial process by ensuring a defendant can present a defense as themselves, not as a pharmacologically altered version shaped by the state. | 4m 56s | ||||||
| 4/19/26 | Chemical Intent: The Limits of “Roid Rage” in Criminal Law | A forensic psychology and criminal law podcast analyzing “roid rage,” anabolic steroid effects on the brain, and how courts evaluate mens rea (criminal intent), voluntary intoxication, and legal responsibility in violent crime cases. This episode breaks down the intersection of neuroscience, behavioral evidence, and legal standards, featuring high-profile cases like Oscar Pistorius and legal precedents such as People v. Hood and R v. Kingston to examine why steroid defenses often fail in court. Designed for audiences interested in true crime, white collar crime, legal analysis, and clinical psychology, this content targets people who like topics such as criminal defense strategy, expert witness testimony, mental state defenses, and the psychology of violent offenders. | 13m 30s | ||||||
| 4/17/26 | The matrix defense: State v. Ansley | No description provided. | 2m 21s | ||||||
| 4/14/26 | When the Courtroom Can’t Wait — Drope v. Missouri and the Duty to Pause | No description provided. | 1m 51s | ||||||
| 7/13/25 | STATE V. HIOTT- CAN CONSENT CLEAR YOU OF AN ASSAULT CHARGE | No description provided. | 4m 06s | ||||||
| 7/6/25 | THE LATEST SUPREME COURT RULING ON PRISON INMATE RIGHTS | No description provided. | 1m 16s | ||||||
| 6/29/25 | WE LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF THE WEEK OF JUNE 23 2025 | No description provided. | 2m 59s | ||||||
| 6/25/25 | DO POLICE ALWAYS NEED A SEARCH WARRANT | No description provided. | 2m 59s | ||||||
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 6/22/25 | TARASOFF V. REGENTS | No description provided. | 2m 22s | ||||||
| 6/15/25 | ZINERMON V. BURCH | No description provided. | 1m 50s | ||||||
| 6/8/25 | LEGAL DEFENSES THAT CAN BE USED FOR AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE1 | No description provided. | 4m 21s | ||||||
| 6/1/25 | CRIME SCENE STAGING | No description provided. | 26m 29s | ||||||
| 5/25/25 | LAW FIRM PAID MILLIONS TO DEFEND INMATE FACES SANCTIONS FOR USING FAKE CASE LAWS THAT WERE PRODUCED BY AI | No description provided. | 4m 48s | ||||||
| 5/25/25 | CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES | No description provided. | 4m 22s | ||||||
| 5/19/25 | PEOPLE V. HUMPHREY | No description provided. | 3m 53s | ||||||
| 5/19/25 | SELF DEFENSE AND USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CALIFORNIA A LEGAL ANALYSIS | No description provided. | 5m 51s | ||||||
| 5/13/25 | CASE STUDY OF WHETHER CONSENT WAS VOLUNTARY OR COERCED | No description provided. | 3m 42s | ||||||
| 5/6/25 | COURTS THOUGHTS ON PRAYER AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS | No description provided. | 3m 03s | ||||||
| 4/2/25 | WHAT IS THE RATIONAL BASIS LAW | No description provided. | 3m 19s | ||||||
| 2/13/25 | WE CHAT WITH TRIAL LAWYER BRIAN WILLIAMS 4 | No description provided. | 52m 33s | ||||||
| 9/1/24 | BERRY V. SUPERIOR COURT - THE ISSUE OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER REQUIRES CONDUCT WITH HIGH PROBABILITY1 | No description provided. | 3m 53s | ||||||
| 8/25/24 | THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY | No description provided. | 3m 00s | ||||||
| 8/25/24 | ANDRESEN V. MARYLAND- A PERSON'S BUSINESS RECORDS AS EVIDENCE VIOLATE THE 5TH AMENDMENT | No description provided. | 5m 09s | ||||||
Showing 25 of 231
Sponsor Intelligence
Sign in to see which brands sponsor this podcast, their ad offers, and promo codes.
Chart Positions
1 placement across 1 market.
Chart Positions
1 placement across 1 market.